What's new

State of teaching (and recording) military history (MH) in Pakistan

More half-baked hysteria.

India went to the UN with a complaint about Pakistani aggression. She mentioned that a plebiscite was planned, but could not be held ad long as a foreign power's troops were milling around. The UN ruling was clear; Pakistan to get out, lock, stock and barrel; no disputed territory business. The plebiscite wad to be held thereafter. Pakistan did the Guest Who Came To Dinner bit.

If you work on reading English, you can read all this for yourself.

No Joe, you write your own history in the english that you seem to have invented.

And after the Indian request, UN declared IOK as a disputed territory. So how could India then say that IOK is her integral part.

It certainly is not and Adam and Eve situation where Eve suddenly appeared out of Adam's side.

Ticker is a hard case. He is sure that the facts are against him, so he refuses to pay attention to them, and hopes that if he goes on, somebody somewhere among the Pakistanis will be convinced.

It is just propaganda, totally dishonest, not any kind of discussion.



Facts, Ticker, facts, not any more of your boring propaganda, please.

Oh my goodness. Have a heart Joe. Now you are declaring me a GOP's supposed propaganda outlet.

Please Joe.

And it is I who is stating the facts and you are twisting them.
 
.
No Joe, you write your own history in the english that you seem to have invented.

And after the Indian request, UN declared IOK as a disputed territory. So how could India then say that IOK is her integral part.

It certainly is not and Adam and Eve situation where Eve suddenly appeared out of Adam's side.

Do try to stop mKing things up.

The UN did not declare Kashmir a disputed territory at the time of the Indian complaint and its own Resolution 47.

Have you in your life read it ever?
 
.
For Ticker it doesnt tick. FaujHistorian started the thread. TheFalseHistorian (Ticker) is invested in derailing it :lol:

Oh come-on @Wickerman, when your perceived historical facts are challenged, the challenger becomes a troller.

This ain't right.
 
.
That is how your sentiment works, if you think it is a disputed teritory and I ask who says so, then you will bring in the UN and when you bring the UN. Now they never said go attack India or did they? Till such time when the whole of Kashmir does not take part in a plebiscite, it will remain our mainland. Now you can twist it any way you like (Like pathans helping people in Kashmir when the help was needed in Jammu :woot:) You cannot distort the history not on this forum anyway.. And if you are such a scholar then god help Pakistan!


Hey guys.

I see a lot of bad history being thrown around.


For Kashmir, there are two distinct issues.

1947-1948

1952

1965




Could you please keep the three events separate for the use of history?


Ticker is right (Oh this day should not have come :lol: ) when he says that 1947 and 48 saw ethnic cleansing of Muslims from Kashmir. You all know that I am the first one to accept a better argument even if it comes from RSS guys.

OK!

Many Indian posters (including our honorable Joe) may not know this dark chapter of Kashmir's bloody history.

In 1946, with the failure of Mission plan, it became obvious that Brits (with agreement form Congress and ML) would "reluctantly" go for Plan B.

Everyone interested in the history of Indian subcontinent should know about Plan A of Brits. Right?

Well for the noobs,

Plan A was to leave the whole continent as one piece intact, undivided. Was that out of love for Indians. Perhaps to a lesser degree.

Brits were mostly concerned with balkanization (do google to find more about the terrible outcome in Europe from such phenomenon) of the sub-continent. They cared less if the united India was run by Muslims or Hindus. They loved Hindu factory owners for their pro-Brit role, and they also loved Muslim landlords for their pro-Brit character. They just wanted to make sure that anyone who takes over the subcontinent remains part of the British geopolitical game (for example at least remain part of the commonwealth).

Plan B was a distant second option in case Plan A failed.

For the noobs,

Plan B was on the table since 1910s. Lala Lajpat rai supported it. CR Das supported it, and both Nehru and Gandhi considered it. Hindu mahasabha was gung-ho supporter too. While Muslims like Jinnah opposed Plan B.

So what the f was this Plan B.

Simply put, it was sort of punishment (in the minds of British elite and Hindu communalists) for the Muslim majority provinces if they do not fall in line with Plan A.

Think about this. A joint family living in a big Haveli, where everyone is rich or poor but they all share the same daal roti, and live their lives.

Then a trouble maker son comes along, and asks for boti (meat or an active role in the politics) instead of daal roti (the usual second class fiddling).

The "establishment" of the haweli doesn't like this upstart. They want to control every aspect of Haweli politics, So how do they threaten him?


Yeah, tell me my dear Joe (I know you are among the few who will give an honest answer)


We all know that "establishment" of Haweli will threaten him with "expulsion" and stop even his daal roti so he would think twice in future when asking for boti.


So this was plan B. To chop off Muslim majority provinces of Punjab and Bengal, then kick out the chopped half that you do not want, and also kick out Sindh and Frontier (KPK). No one talked about Balochistan, because it was distant place that everybody knew about but no body actually went there, sort of Mars in the planetary scheme of things.


Thus the idea was the reduce, chop, cut, minimize as much as you can to make sure the upstart, the boti-demander will not survive for more than two weeks.

Oh and the establishment of haweli made sure that they malign and disrespect this upstart to a point that every generation of haweli would remember him as the bad guy, nay the worst possible thing on the face of the earth.


Now when Indian posters come on this forum to talk about Pakistan, they in fact are blindly regurgitating the propaganda of the "establishment of this haweli".

This is why I have no hope that Pakistan will be accepted by Indian establishment. Ever!


Coming back to Kashmir.

So in 1946 mission plan fails. Plan B is in motion. Indian Congress is now planning how to make sure Pakistan won't survive just like the younger brother from Haweli. Things are solidified further in the summer of 47.

Congress and Hindu militants came up with a plan to ethnically cleanse Indian Punjab and Kashmir. Muslims were the majority landowners in Indian Punjab and in Kashmir. It is always the real estate that counts.

Indian planners knew that as reaction, Hindus and Sikhs may get kicked out from Pakistani Punjab. But the loss was mostly in the large cities for Hindus and Sikh villages. However Sikhs were bought off with the idea that All Sikhs will get to Indian Punjab and there they will have majority and their own fing government (later the Sikh Sooba was chopped off, with zero independent capital).

This is how Congress and Hindu militants stole all the agricultual land from Muslims in Punjab (100% of it) and to lesser degree in Kashmir.

For Kashmir n July 1947 (one month before independence of Pakistan), Guess what? Gandhi Ji who has never been to Kashmir, pays a visit. Immediately after that visit with Mahraja Hari Singh dogra, kicks out the Prime Minister of Kashmir, Ram Chandar Kak, who had no inclination towards India and replaced him with Janak Singh and then by the Indian loyalist, Mehr Chand Mahajan.

The British officers in the Kashmir Army and Police were dismissed including the Inspector General of Police and the Chief of the General Staff. Orders for construction of a bridge over the Ravi River, near Pathankot, to allow connectivity between India and Jammu and Kashmir were issued. The road between Jammu and Kathua was improved and a telegraph line was constructed between Jammu and the valley. This was all possible because of assistance from India. (There are other sources in my library but here is a quick link for the quoted stuff: How Mahatma Gandhi Stalled Kashmir’s Independence. « ~ Kashmir ~)

then 60,000 Punch Muslims veterans of WWII were asked to disarm.

everyone knew that Hindu militants are being armed to the teeth, so off course Punchi WWII veterans refused. They were attacked by both the Kashmir state and the Hindu extremists and this is how ethnic cleansing of Muslims started in Kashmir and Jammu.


However Indians will continue talking about invasion of Pathan tribes while utterly refusing the despicable role of Gandhi, Congress and Hindu militants.



to be continued....
 
. .
Do try to stop mKing things up.

The UN did not declare Kashmir a disputed territory at the time of the Indian complaint and its own Resolution 47.

Have you in your life read it ever?

I said after the Indian request - did I say immediately afterwards or instantaneously afterwards.

Why are you so jumpy Joe. Take it easy.

Can't be helped.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and all the rest of it.....

hmmm ... sure it can be helped ..... don't walk like a pregnant duck.
 
.
Hey guys.

I see a lot of bad history being thrown around.


For Kashmir, there are two distinct issues.

1947-1948

1952

1965




Could you please keep the three events separate for the use of history?
...............................................................

However Indians will continue talking about invasion of Pathan tribes while utterly refusing the despicable role of Gandhi, Congress and Hindu militants.



to be continued....

Please look at this as well ........

If one looks at Nehru’s speech in the Lok Sabha on June 26, 1952, he said, “It just does not matter what your Constitution says. If the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there.” If the plebiscite went against India, he would accept the verdict “and we would change our Constitution about it”. This he tells his people in the Lok Sabha.

However, the two faces of India were revealed in Nehru’s Note of August 25, 1952. He made a startling revelation about his change of mind by the end of 1948.

He wrote in a Note (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; volume 19, pages 322-330), “Towards the end of 1948…. it became clear to me then that we would never get the conditions which were necessary for a plebiscite… so I ruled out the plebiscite for all practical purposes.”

He was lying to his own people, he was lying to the Kashmiris and at the same time he was also lying to the United Nations as well as the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) in December 1948.
 
.
Hey guys.

I see a lot of bad history being thrown around.


For Kashmir, there are two distinct issues.

1947-1948

1952

1965




Could you please keep the three events separate for the use of history?


Ticker is right (Oh this day should not have come :lol: ) when he says that 1947 and 48 saw ethnic cleansing of Muslims from Kashmir.

Many Indian posters (including our honorable Joe) may not know this dark chapter of Kashmir's bloody history.

In 1946, with the failure of Mission plan, it became obvious that Brits (with agreement form Congress and ML) would "reluctantly" go for Plan B.

Everyone interested in the history of Indian subcontinent should know about Plan A of Brits. Right?

Well for the noobs,

Plan A was to leave the whole continent as one piece intact, undivided. Was that out of love for Indians. Perhaps to a lesser degree.

Brits were mostly concerned with balkanization (do google to find more about the terrible outcome in Europe from such phenomenon) of the sub-continent. They cared less if the united India was run by Muslims or Hindus. They loved Hindu factory owners for their pro-Brit role, and they also loved Muslim landlords for their pro-Brit character. They just wanted to make sure that anyone who takes over the subcontinent remains part of the British geopolitical game (for example at least remain part of the commonwealth).

Plan B was a distant second option in case Plan A failed.

For the noobs,

Plan B was on the table since 1910s. Lala Lajpat rai supported it. CR Das supported it, and both Nehru and Gandhi considered it. Hindu mahasabha was gung-ho supporter too. While Muslims like Jinnah opposed Plan B.

So what the f was this Plan B.

Simply put, it was sort of punishment (in the minds of British elite and Hindu communalists) for the Muslim majority provinces if they do not fall in line with Plan B.

Think about this. A joint family living in a big Haveli, where everyone is rich or poor but they all share the same daal roti, and live their lives.

Then a trouble maker son comes along, and asks for boti (meat or an active role in the politics) instead of daal roti (the usual second class fiddling).

The "establishment" of the haweli doesn't like this upstart. They want to control every aspect of Haweli politics, So how do they threaten him?


Yeah, tell me my dear Joe (I know you are among the few who will give an honest answer)


We all know that "establishment" of Haweli will threaten him with "expulsion" and stop even his daal roti so he would think twice in future when asking for boti.


So this was plan B. To chop off Muslim majority provinces of Punjab and Bengal, then kick out the chopped half that you do not want, and also kick out Sindh and Frontier (KPK). No one talked about Balochistan, because it was distant place that everybody knew about but no body actually went there, sort of Mars in the planetary scheme of things.


Thus the idea was the reduce, chop, cut, minimize as much as you can to make sure the upstart, the boti-demander will not survive for more than two weeks.

Oh and the establishment of haweli made sure that they malign and disrespect this upstart to a point that every generation of haweli would remember him as the bad guy, nay the worst possible thing on the face of the earth.


Now when Indian posters come on this forum to talk about Pakistan, they in fact are blindly regurgitating the propaganda of the "establishment of this haweli".

This is why I have no hope that Pakistan will be accepted by Indian establishment. Ever!


So coming back to Kashmir.

So in 1946 mission plan fails. Plan B is now in motion. Indian Congress is now planning how to make sure Pakistan won't survive just like the younger brother from Haweli. Things are solidified further in the summer of 47.

Congress and Hindu militants came up with a plan to ethnically cleanse Indian Punjab and Kashmir. Then in July 1947 (one month before independence of Pakistan), Guess what? Gandhi Ji who has never been to Kashmir, pays a visit. Immediately after that visit with Mahraja Hari Singh dogra, kicks out the Prime Minister of Kashmir, Ram Chandar Kak, who had no inclination towards India and replaced him with Janak Singh and then by the Indian loyalist, Mehr Chand Mahajan.

The British officers in the Kashmir Army and Police were dismissed including the Inspector General of Police and the Chief of the General Staff. Orders for construction of a bridge over the Ravi River, near Pathankot, to allow connectivity between India and Jammu and Kashmir were issued. The road between Jammu and Kathua was improved and a telegraph line was constructed between Jammu and the valley. This was all possible because of assistance from India. (There are other sources in my library but here is a quick link for the quoted stuff: How Mahatma Gandhi Stalled Kashmir’s Independence. « ~ Kashmir ~)

then 60,000 Punch Muslims veterans of WWII were asked to disarm.

everyone knew that Hindu militants are being armed to the teeth, so off course Punchi WWII veterans refused. They were attacked by both the Kashmir state and the Hindu extremists and this is how ethnic cleansing of Muslims started in Kashmir and Jammu.


However Indians will continue talking about invasion of Pathan tribes while utterly refusing the despicable role of Gandhi, Congress and Hindu militants.



to be continued....

Aah, sorry to interrupt this beautiful song, but maybe one Mohammed Ali Jinnah had something to do with Pakistan? If I remember correctly, from 1937 onwards' he insisted on a Muslim homeland? And even defined it as two territories, one in the north west and one in the east?

While Mountbatten tried to keep the Country together, as you have pointed out, it was the Muslim League that insisted on partition, not that the British and the Congress punished the Muslims by expelling them.

But do continue; it sounds so beautiful the way you sing it.

I said after the Indian request - did I say immediately afterwards or instantaneously afterwards.

Why are you so jumpy Joe. Take it easy.



hmmm ... sure it can be helped ..... don't walk like a pregnant duck.


Heh, not even as late as Resolution 47. So when did this big deal happen? I am sure you can think up some instant history.
 
. .
Please look at this as well ........

If one looks at Nehru’s speech in the Lok Sabha on June 26, 1952, he said, “It just does not matter what your Constitution says. If the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there.” If the plebiscite went against India, he would accept the verdict “and we would change our Constitution about it”. This he tells his people in the Lok Sabha.

However, the two faces of India were revealed in Nehru’s Note of August 25, 1952. He made a startling revelation about his change of mind by the end of 1948.

He wrote in a Note (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; volume 19, pages 322-330), “Towards the end of 1948…. it became clear to me then that we would never get the conditions which were necessary for a plebiscite… so I ruled out the plebiscite for all practical purposes.”

He was lying to his own people, he was lying to the Kashmiris and at the same time he was also lying to the United Nations as well as the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) in December 1948.

A bit too glib.

Since you are interested in 'good' history, let me recommend that you browse through the recorded discussions of the UN Commission tasked to bring the situation to normalcy, and to hold the plebiscite.

Let me warn you - an honest Pakistani will find it painful reading.

It explains Nehru's despondency in more than adequate terms; there is no need to build a structure of mendacity out of honestly-expressed frustration.
 
.
Why don't you tell us Joe. You are the expert here, I am certainly not one.


Why are you averse to finding out? There was a clear historical event that marked this. And it was not due to the nature of the accession.
 
.
Aah, sorry to interrupt this beautiful song, but maybe one Mohammed Ali Jinnah had something to do with Pakistan? If I remember correctly, from 1937 onwards' he insisted on a Muslim homeland? And even defined it as two territories, one in the north west and one in the east?

While Mountbatten tried to keep the Country together, as you have pointed out, it was the Muslim League that insisted on partition, not that the British and the Congress punished the Muslims by expelling them.

But do continue; it sounds so beautiful the way you sing it.




Heh, not even as late as Resolution 47. So when did this big deal happen? I am sure you can think up some instant history.

My dear Joe,

with all due respect Sir. That you are correct about Jinnah. He did talk about lumping Muslim majority provinces, however he differed from Plan B on the following aspects.

1. There was no chopping off of Muslim vs. Hindu areas.
2. The Muslim majority provinces were still to remain under Delhi rule and thus preserving unity of the subcontinent.

Looking back, we could have avoided the bloodshed and all the problems associated with separation, had we followed Jinnah's approach with adjustments here and there.


Do keep the discussion going. I assure you that I won't mock your postings out of "sheer respect" for Shearer.


peace
 
.
Please look at this as well ........

If one looks at Nehru’s speech in the Lok Sabha on June 26, 1952, he said, “It just does not matter what your Constitution says. If the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there.” If the plebiscite went against India, he would accept the verdict “and we would change our Constitution about it”. This he tells his people in the Lok Sabha.

However, the two faces of India were revealed in Nehru’s Note of August 25, 1952. He made a startling revelation about his change of mind by the end of 1948.

He wrote in a Note (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; volume 19, pages 322-330), “Towards the end of 1948…. it became clear to me then that we would never get the conditions which were necessary for a plebiscite… so I ruled out the plebiscite for all practical purposes.”

He was lying to his own people, he was lying to the Kashmiris and at the same time he was also lying to the United Nations as well as the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) in December 1948.


OK.

Now we are talking about 1952 (related but different set of events).

1952 was a turning point for Indian Kashmir. How?

This is the year when all-weather Banihal tunnel was completed by the hard work of Indian military.

Why this tunnel change the history?

Because until the completion of this tunnel, Kashmir valley had only access through Punch and also cutoff during winter season.

Thus the Indian military was at the mercy of Pakistani forces during these difficult times.

For an honest historian, Nehru's begging in the UN were just to bide for time. And he did that tactfully.

Pakistanis sat around due to lack of resources, and utter ignorance that Kashmir valley will always be dependent on Pakistan like it did from the time of written history.

But aggressive nations tend to alter history with sheer will power.

And this is what Indians did in 1952.

Once the tunnel was complete, Nehru said bye bye to the UN resolutions.


Thus anyone in Pakistan today who talks about UN resolutions is just wasting his/her time.


There are solutions to the Kashmir problem, but that is for future and not for history (we can only learn from an honest analysis of history. That's all).


to be continued.
 
.
A bit too glib.

Since you are interested in 'good' history, let me recommend that you browse through the recorded discussions of the UN Commission tasked to bring the situation to normalcy, and to hold the plebiscite.

Let me warn you - an honest Pakistani will find it painful reading.

It explains Nehru's despondency in more than adequate terms; there is no need to build a structure of mendacity out of honestly-expressed frustration.

I don't know the dates of these recordings - but I know the date Nehru made his decision.

Nehru’s speech in the Lok Sabha was on June 26, 1952, when he said, “It just does not matter what your Constitution says. If the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there.” If the plebiscite went against India, he would accept the verdict “and we would change our Constitution about it”. This he tells his people in the Lok Sabha.

Whereas, he had made the decision to not to hold the plebiscite at the end of 1948 as per his own admission.
 
.
My dear Joe,

with all due respect Sir. That you are correct about Jinnah. He did talk about lumping Muslim majority provinces, however he differed from Plan B on the following aspects.

1. There was no chopping off of Muslim vs. Hindu areas.
2. The Muslim majority provinces were still to remain under Delhi rule and thus preserving unity of the subcontinent.

Looking back, we could have avoided the bloodshed and all the problems associated with separation, had we followed Jinnah's approach with adjustments here and there.


Do keep the discussion going. I assure you that I won't mock your postings out of "sheer respect" for Shearer.


peace

Oye tu asli fauji te naii kitay .... TC bot karda aein.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom